• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America’s Dumbest War, Ever

RabidAlpaca said:
We've never once declared it a safe haven for terrorists. We put our dirty fingers into training the taliban to fight the russians, then left right after.
Click to expand...
Turning tail and running would, defacto, declare that Afghanistan is a safe haven.

It is not a winning stragegy.

We did the right thing in training and arming the freedom fighters. I do agree we missed an opportunity to stay and help out once the Soviets declared victory and returned home. The Soviets failed for a variety of reasons. You already know them.

If we have the same goal then we are likely to meet with the same failure. If we are preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safehaven then we can succeed day after day. Islam has been around for a long time. This is not a short war.
 
Misterveritis said:
I said, "If it wasn't socialism and he wasn't socialist then why would his (non) socialist policies cause an anti-socialist backlash?"


I see. Let me restate to make sure we share a common understanding. You believe the US was faced with two polar opposite choices, freedom to choose for ourselves, usually called free-market capitalism, or slavery under a socialist regime. But the all-wise, all powerful, Wizard of Roosevelt clevery discerned a third path, socialism-as-far-as-he could-push-it, under the name of liberalism. As a result of his cleverness the American people rejected socialism, which according to you, is something different than socialism-as-far-as-he could-push-it, under the name of liberalism. Is that correct?

By pushing socialism-as-far-as-he could-push-it, under the name of liberalism, he saved us from socialism?

Awesome.
Click to expand...

This would be great if you would actually put words into their proper context and meaning before disagreeing to the point of exaggerated blabber. It would make explaining history a lot easier. I don't know why I should bother anymore.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Apparently you didn't listen to a word I said earlier. You simply can't put soldiers on every mountaintop and every street corner in the world. Team America World Police is a dangerous and bloody ideology to hold.
Click to expand...
These particular words are not relevant. You offer a false choice. We do not need to be everywhere to deny Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al Quada. We stay. We gather information. We improve and secure the place where we are. We learn from them and allow them to learn from us. We deny terrorists the use of Afghanistan for the next hundred years or so.

Or we can give up and wait for the next city to burn.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Yeah we should stay there forever.

Totally a good use of brave souls and hard earned treasure.
Click to expand...
We will only win when we are prepared to stay there forever. Otherwise we shall lose. And more American cities will burn. More civilians will be murdered. Moe bad things will happen.

Or wee could provide the Islamists a list of their holy places that will be destroyed, one for each dead American. Personally, I like the latter. Eventually we are going to fight this war. Why not now?
 
Dittohead not! said:
but just look how well having invaded Afganistan turned out for the Soviets.

And for all of the other nations and empires that invaded over the centuries.

Don't we want a part of that success?
Click to expand...

Afghanistan is a very difficult place to "defeat". But that need not be our goal. We only need to deny its use to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That is doable for as long as we choose to do so.

We are not invaders. We are paying guests.
 
Misterveritis said:
These particular words are not relevant. You offer a false choice. We do not need to be everywhere to deny Afghanistan to the Taliban and Al Quada. We stay. We gather information. We improve and secure the place where we are. We learn from them and allow them to learn from us. We deny terrorists the use of Afghanistan for the next hundred years or so.

Or we can give up and wait for the next city to burn.
Click to expand...
You're so fundamentalist that I find it amusing. Assuming we "lock down" afghanistan and completely deny it to the terrorists. What prevents them from just moving to the next poor country we're not? The only end game to your solution is holding every country simultaneously.

What city has burned? I remember two buildings going down, I don't remember an entire city burning.

Try not to be melodramatic.
 
Misterveritis said:
Turning tail and running would, defacto, declare that Afghanistan is a safe haven.

It is not a winning stragegy.

We did the right thing in training and arming the freedom fighters. I do agree we missed an opportunity to stay and help out once the Soviets declared victory and returned home. The Soviets failed for a variety of reasons. You already know them.

If we have the same goal then we are likely to meet with the same failure. If we are preventing Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist safehaven then we can succeed day after day. Islam has been around for a long time. This is not a short war.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you've finally made it obvious that "pride" and "winning" is far more important to you than american lives, and the tangible benefits to our society.

There is nothing I can say to this that I haven't already said. You believe afghanistan is so important that it requires the constant and ongoing shedding of american blood, as to not lose face. I take solace in the fact that the future will turn out as I have suggested, and not as you desire. We're leaving afghanistan, and that s***hole can burn to the ground for all I care. We have far more important things in america to worry about.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
We will only win when we are prepared to stay there forever. Otherwise we shall lose. And more American cities will burn. More civilians will be murdered. Moe bad things will happen.

Or wee could provide the Islamists a list of their holy places that will be destroyed, one for each dead American. Personally, I like the latter. Eventually we are going to fight this war. Why not now?
Click to expand...

Stay there forever? Is that sarcastic or are you part of the international arms industry?

Do you know what a guerilla war is?*

And on the whole denying safe havens to AQ part.
I suppose you've never heard of Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen...

International Arms Trade is an interesting world. The profits that would be made from a war of forever out of international Govt's Contracts would be astronomical.



You have to wonder what there is to win in a Desert?
 
DaveFagan said:
I am blaming the Corporations that can afford to buy Congressman. We have the best Congressmen that money can buy. The money that influences the direction that Congress moves is the real issue. I can't afford to buy a Congressman, can you. It's time to deal with reality, not a hypothetical, utopian government operating for "truth and justice, the American way." Real world issues.
Click to expand...

I do that by firing those congressmen. Whats your solution?
 
The US should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. But with 3,000 or so troops, max. No reason to nation build. Never was.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The US should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. But with 3,000 or so troops, max. No reason to nation build. Never was.
Click to expand...


Let's see. The USA is not an imperialistic Nation, but we have military bases in about 140 Countries. Why not 141?
 
Mycroft said:
Regardless...this is Obama's Vietnam. Just like in Vietnam, Obama is not going to allow our guys to fight this war.
Click to expand...

What do you want to do? Nuke 'em? The only way to "win" in Vietnam or Afghanistan was to kill everyone there. Is that your point?
Neither country is EVER going to be our puppet as long as any are alive to pick up a gun.
 
iguanaman said:
What do you want to do? Nuke 'em? The only way to "win" in Vietnam or Afghanistan was to kill everyone there. Is that your point?
Neither country is EVER going to be our puppet as long as any are alive to pick up a gun.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the highlighted statement, therefore I have no response to the rest of your post.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The US should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely. But with 3,000 or so troops, max. No reason to nation build. Never was.
Click to expand...

It's sad, but understandable that you hold this view, because your job as a contractor benefits directly from this situation. For the rest of us who can view the situation objectively, it's madness.

It's people like you that are the reason we're in this situation in the first place. War is a business, and business is goooood.
 
iliveonramen said:
You got it backwards....Republicans want Afghanistan to turn into Vietnam. Anything to win some power for those folks!
Click to expand...

Ummm...

In case you don't know, Obama has been the one in charge of Afghanistan for almost four years. He's the one to initiate the failed surge. He's the one who hasn't been able to do anything with their idiot President. And he's the one to order our troops into their current posture of head in sand...ass in the air.

Yep...it's his Vietnam, all right.
 
Mycroft said:
I don't agree with the highlighted statement, therefore I have no response to the rest of your post.
Click to expand...

At least you didn't attempt to give a way we could have won in Vietnam short of nuking them. You would have looked even more foolish.
We lost in Vietnam and Iraq the minute we sent troops there. We went to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and Alqeada..... mission accomplished...time to go home.
We can leave the drones there though. Just the targets for the Taliban need to leave.
 
iguanaman said:
At least you didn't attempt to give a way we could have won in Vietnam short of nuking them. You would have looked even more foolish.
We lost in Vietnam and Iraq the minute we sent troops there. We went to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden and Alqeada..... mission accomplished...time to go home.
We can leave the drones there though. Just the targets for the Taliban need to leave.
Click to expand...

Ahhh...now I know why your posts in this thread are ridiculous...you don't think.

Tell me...if we remove all the troops and leave the drones...do you think the drones will service themselves?

Pathetic lack of reasoning skill, dude.


btw, before you start saying we lost in Iraq, you should check with Obama...he might have a dispute with your assessment.

He said the last American troops will depart the country by January 1 "with their heads held high, proud of their success..."
Click to expand...

Mr. Obama said Friday that "Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their country's security" and said that the relationship between the United States and Iraq going forward will be one of equals.

"It will be a normal relationship between sovereign nations, an equal partnership based on mutual interest and mutual respect," he said.

Mr. Obama discussed the planned announcement earlier in the day with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki over secure video conference. He said al-Maliki "spoke of the determination of the Iraqi people to forge their own future," and that the two leaders are "in full agreement about how to move forward."

Mr. Obama said he had invited al-Maliki to the White House in December and vowed that the United States and Iraq will embark on a "strong and enduring partnership."

"As I told Prime Minister Maliki, we will continue discussions on how we might help Iraq train and equip its forces, again, just as we offer training and assistance to countries around the world," said the president. "After all, there will be some difficult days ahead for Iraq and the United States will continue to have an interest in an Iraq that is stable, secure and self-reliant.
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...f-iraq-war-troops-to-return-home-by-year-end/

Hardly sounds like the words of a President who was defeated, don't you think?
 
Last edited:
Mycroft said:
Ummm...

In case you don't know, Obama has been the one in charge of Afghanistan for almost four years. He's the one to initiate the failed surge. He's the one who hasn't been able to do anything with their idiot President. And he's the one to order our troops into their current posture of head in sand...ass in the air.

Yep...it's his Vietnam, all right.
Click to expand...

Well obviously he doesnt' want it to turn into Vietnam...I don't see exactly how that would benefit him, his party, or his policies. I think my correction is accurate that Republicans benefit from Afghanistan turning into Vietnam...hence your psuedo-fist pump that Afghanistan is not going well.
 
iliveonramen said:
Well obviously he doesnt' want it to turn into Vietnam...

I suppose you might be right...but his actions sure don't support you.

I don't see exactly how that would benefit him, his party, or his policies.

I don't either, but heck...most of his actions don't benefit anyone.

I think my correction is accurate that Republicans benefit from Afghanistan turning into Vietnam...hence your psuedo-fist pump that Afghanistan is not going well.
Click to expand...

No...Republicans don't benefit either. But one thing is for sure...the Republicans know how to make decisions. They would, at least, decide to do something instead of sticking our troops heads in the sand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom